New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-05-26
PICTURE AND IT'S DOUBLE.
ruv STORY OF TWO ALLEGED VAN MARCKrs

rHE STORY OF TWO ALLEGED VAN MARCKrs
Advance sheets of the June Art Amateur" furnish
curious story relating to two paintings of the same
subject both attributed to Van Marcke, who has
declared that he makes point of painting two
pictures alike" According to "The Art Amateur
Mr. T. Briggs, of this city, is the owner OF small
Van Msrcke purchased In Paris four years ago from
Goupfl e. Co. When the X. H. Halsted collection vas
shown st the Academy last winter Mr.. briggs, ''is
the exhibition, "recoynzed the double OF MS own
picture the two being virtually Identical not ohy IA
composition color and other details, but also In SIZE
Mr.. Briggs called the attention oil Mr. has'eu I'd tno
@concidence," and there was an interchange Oh
letters aThe Art Amateur" states that the picture
IN the Halsted collection "was put into the sale
among others belonging to different dealers to be sold
for their benefit" Mr Briggs's request tor COM
parissn of pictures, however, brought out letter
from NJ. Knoedler & Co. stating that the picture
which Mr.. Halsted purchased OF us vas bought ny
us in April, 1885, OF Goupil g. Co., after cafelui
selection and 1t would be hardly probable that we
la or lifelong experience would be so mistaken as
to buy a copy for an original Al ,no
same time Messrs. knoedler O. 20. saiu
1As we do not know your picture, we
know from the source where it was procured that II
must be an original" 1t proposed tnat Mr..
Briggs should take his picture to the Academy Tor
comparison and Mr. Briggs repeated his suggestion
that the KnoeJler picture should be brought to his
house tor the purpose. but nothing was done:
AT the sale the " Halsted-Knoeder wan Marcke
went for 1925, Messrs Knoedler 20. bemg the
buyers" Mr.. Briggs thereupon asked the assistance
OF the Editor of The Art Amateur" ITO get at the
bottom of the matter" AIR Oehme. OF Knoeder x
Co.. was quite sure that his Van Marcke was
genuine picture, and supposed that Mr. Briggs
picture must have been painted by Van Marcse some
years after it." photograph of Mr. Briggs picture
however was sent to Paris by Mr.. Marks and sub
mitted TO Van Marcke by Mr. Theodore Child INC
latter reports that Van Marcke recognized IN 1t his
work; the original panel was painted from nature
good many years ago. Van Marcke considers that
the replica of which you speak must be forgery, Tor
he has no recollection Dt having copied this picture
He makes a point OF never painting TWO pictures
alike; in his whole career he has, on perhaps halt
dozen occasions, painted reductions OF his own
pictures but always with the consent OF the owner,
Ills principle being that artist has no light to make
a replica OF any work, because such replica
diminshes the value OF the original You may there
fore conclude that If the replica In question Is
identical in composition with the photograph nclosed,
that replica is a copy and forgery"
Az has been often shown, tue recollections OF q
prolific painter in regard to special pictures are not
always accurate hut the it stands Will furnish
picture buyers with food for serious thought. II
both paintings however could be submitted dIect,y
TO Van Marcke his decision would be generally
accepted. II photograph of the Knoedier picture
had been sent to the artist he might have DECLARED
that the original and the other copy but, as it L.
the burden of further proof does not seem to rest
upon Mr. Briggs and the other side can hardly anord
to let the matter rest where 1t Is